Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Robotic gastrectomy versus open gastrectomy in the treatment of gastric cancer

  • Review – Clinical Oncology
  • Published:
Journal of Cancer Research and Clinical Oncology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

Robotic gastrectomy (RG) has been developed to improve surgical quality and to overcome the limitations of conventional open gastrectomy (OG) for gastric cancer. The aim of this meta-analysis is to comprehensively compare the safety and efficacy between robotic surgery and open surgery for treating gastric cancer.

Methods

Major databases were searched for retrospective case-matched studies comparing RG and OG for treating gastric cancer. A list of these studies, published in English from 1990 to 2016, was obtained independently by two reviewers from databases such as PubMed, MEDLINE, ScienceDirect, the China National Knowledge Infrastructure and Web of Science. Intraoperative data, oncological outcomes and postoperative complications were compared using Review Manager 5.3.

Results

Seven studies involving 5970 patients with 606 cases of RG and 5364 cases of OG were included in this meta-analysis. Compared to OG, RG has a significantly longer operation time [weighted mean differences (WMD) = 63.72, 95 % confidence interval (CI) 33.83–93.61, P < 0.0001], lower blood loss (WMD: −129.74, 95 % CI −178.31 to −81.16, P < 0.00001) and shorter hospital stay (WMD = −2.39, 95 % CI −2.92 to −1.87; P < 0.00001). No statistical difference was noted based on the rate of overall postoperative complication, wound infection, bleeding, ileus and obstruction, abdominal collections and abscesses, and the rate of anastomotic leak in the RG versus OG. Postoperative oncological outcomes showed that there were also no statistical differences among the number of retrieved lymph nodes, proximal resection margin, distal resection margin except for tumor size (WMD = −1.60; 95 % CI −2.96 to −0.25; P = 0.02).

Conclusion

The results of this meta-analysis suggest that RG will be more accessible than conventional OG for gastric cancer. However, more prospective, well-designed, multicenter, randomized controlled trials are necessary to further evaluate the safety and efficacy as well as the long-term outcome of this technology.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Autorino R, Zargar H et al (2014) Robotic-assisted laparoscopic surgery: recent advances in urology. Fertil Steril 102(4):939–949

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Ballantyne GH, Moll F (2003) The da Vinci telerobotic surgical system: the virtual operative field and telepresence surgery. Surg Clin North Am 83(6):1293–1299

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Cadiere GB, Himpens J et al (2001) Feasibility of robotic laparoscopic surgery: 146 cases. World J Surg 25(11):1467–1477

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Caruso S, Patriti A et al (2011) Open vs robot-assisted laparoscopic gastric resection with D2 lymph node dissection for adenocarcinoma: a case–control study. Int J Med Robot Comput 7(4):452–458

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chi L, Peiwu Y (2013) Robotic gastrectomy short-term surgical outcomes versus laparoscopic and open gastrectomy: a case-control study. The Third Military Medical University. Doctor: 51

  • D’Annibale A, Pende V et al (2011) Full robotic gastrectomy with extended (D2) lymphadenectomy for gastric cancer: surgical technique and preliminary results. J Surg Res 166(2):E113–E120

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • DerSimonian R, Kacker R (2007) Random-effects model for meta-analysis of clinical trials: an update. Contemp Clin Trials 28(2):105–114

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Desai PH, Lin JF et al (2014) Milestones to optimal adoption of robotic technology in gynecology. Obstet Gynecol 123(1):13–20

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Gutt CN, Oniu T et al (2004) Robot-assisted abdominal surgery. Br J Surg 91(11):1390–1396

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Higgins JP, Thompson SG et al (2003) Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses. BMJ 327(7414):557–560

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Huang K, Lan Y et al (2012) Initial experience of robotic gastrectomy and comparison with open and laparoscopic gastrectomy for gastric cancer. J Gastrointest Surg 16(7):1303–1310

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Hyun M, Lee C et al (2013) Robot versus laparoscopic gastrectomy for cancer by an experienced surgeon: comparisons of surgery, complications, and surgical stress. Ann Surg Oncol 20(4):1258–1265

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Kang BH, Xuan Y et al (2012) Comparison of surgical outcomes between robotic and laparoscopic gastrectomy for gastric cancer: the learning curve of robotic surgery. J Gastric Cancer 12(3):156–163

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Kim M, Heo G et al (2010) Robotic gastrectomy for gastric cancer: surgical techniques and clinical merits. Surg Endosc 24(3):610–615

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Kim KM, An JY et al (2012) Major early complications following open, laparoscopic and robotic gastrectomy. Br J Surg 99(12):1681–1687

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Liao G, Xie G et al (2013a) Meta-analysis of outcomes compared between robotic and laparoscopic gastrectomy for gastric cancer. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev 14(8):4871–4875

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Liao G, Chen J et al (2013b) Robotic versus open gastrectomy for gastric cancer: a meta-analysis. PLoS One 8(12):e81946

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Maeso S, Reza M et al (2010) Efficacy of the Da Vinci surgical system in abdominal surgery compared with that of laparoscopy a systematic review and meta-analysis. Ann Surg 252(2):254–262

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Mantel N, Haenszel W (1959) Statistical aspects of the analysis of data from retrospective studies of disease. J Natl Cancer Inst 22(4):719–748

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Munoz M, Gomez-Ramirez S et al (2016) Pre-operative haematological assessment in patients scheduled for major surgery. Anaesthesia 711(SI):19–28

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pigazzi A, Ellenhorn JDI et al (2006) Robotic-assisted laparoscopic low anterior resection with total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer. Surg Endosc 20(10):1521–1525

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Procopiuc L, Tudor S et al (2016) Open vs robotic radical gastrectomy for locally advanced gastric cancer. Int J Med Robot 12(3):502–508

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Pugliese R, Maggioni D et al (2009) Outcomes and survival after laparoscopic gastrectomy for adenocarcinoma. Analysis on 65 patients operated on by conventional or robot-assisted minimal access procedures. Eur J Surg Oncol 35(3):281–288

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Shehzad K, Mohiuddin K et al (2007) Current status of minimal access surgery for gastric cancer. Surg Oncol 16(2):85–98

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Son T, Lee JH et al (2014) Robotic spleen-preserving total gastrectomy for gastric cancer: comparison with conventional laparoscopic procedure. Surg Endosc 28(9):2606–2615

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Song J, Oh SJ et al (2009) Robot-assisted gastrectomy with lymph node dissection for gastric cancer lessons learned from an initial 100 consecutive procedures. Ann Surg 249(6):927–932

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Song J, Kim KH et al (2010) Is minimally invasive gastrectomy feasible for the treatment of multiple early gastric cancer? J Korean Surg Soc 79(4):281–286

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Songun I, Putter H et al (2010) Surgical treatment of gastric cancer: 15-year follow-up results of the randomised nationwide Dutch D1D2 trial. Lancet Oncol 11(5):439–449

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Tinelli A, Malvasi A et al (2011) Robotic assisted surgery in gynecology: current insights and future perspectives. Recent Pat Biotechnol 5(1):12–24

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Vamvakas EC (1995) Perioperative blood transfusion and cancer recurrence: meta-analysis for explanation. Transfusion 35(9):760–767

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Wang G, Jiang Z et al (2016) Assessing the safety and efficacy of full robotic gastrectomy with intracorporeal robot-sewn anastomosis for gastric cancer: a randomized clinical trial. J Surg Oncol 113(4):397–404

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Woo Y, Hyung WJ et al (2011) Robotic gastrectomy as an oncologically sound alternative to laparoscopic resections for the treatment of early-stage gastric cancers. Arch Surg 146(9):1086–1092

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Wu W, Smith TS et al (2010) Operative blood loss, blood transfusion, and 30-day mortality in older patients after major noncardiac surgery. Ann Surg 252(1):11–17

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Xiong B, Ma L et al (2012) Robotic versus laparoscopic gastrectomy for gastric cancer: a meta-analysis of short outcomes. Surg Oncol 21(4):274–280

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Yoon HM, Kim Y et al (2012) Robot-assisted total gastrectomy is comparable with laparoscopically assisted total gastrectomy for early gastric cancer. Surg Endosc 26(5):1377–1381

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of General Surgery, Fourth Affiliated Hospital of Hebei Medical University, Shijiazhuang, China

    Yafan Yang, Guiying Wang, Jingli He, Fengpeng Wu & Shuguang Ren

  2. Animal Center, Fourth Affiliated Hospital of Hebei Medical University, Shijiazhuang, China

    Yafan Yang, Guiying Wang, Jingli He, Fengpeng Wu & Shuguang Ren

Authors
  1. Yafan Yang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Guiying Wang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Jingli He
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Fengpeng Wu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Shuguang Ren
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Guiying Wang.

Ethics declarations

Ethical approval and informed consent

All analyses were based on previous published studies, and thus, no ethical approval and patient consent are required.

Conflict of interest

We have declared no conflict of interest in connection with the work submitted.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Yang, Y., Wang, G., He, J. et al. Robotic gastrectomy versus open gastrectomy in the treatment of gastric cancer. J Cancer Res Clin Oncol 143, 105–114 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00432-016-2240-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00432-016-2240-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation